affinity_get_document_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations' read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive guarantees, the description discloses the current-document default and the breadth of state inspected, including fonts and dirty/undo state. It does not explain behavior when no document is current or a session identifier is invalid, but these are minor omissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences front-load the operation and returned information, then explain optional targeting. Every phrase contributes useful selection or invocation detail without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the returned content, default target, and parameter usage. Despite the absence of an output schema, the enumerated settings provide enough detail for correct selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema provides no parameter description, the tool description fully explains session_uuid's purpose and the consequence of omitting it. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource, "Read a document's setup," then enumerates the exact settings and state returned. Its read-only focus also clearly distinguishes it from the sibling affinity_set_document_settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear targeting guidance: use the current document by default or supply session_uuid for a specific document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are essential for this straightforward read operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.